So, I try and have this argument on ron paul forums, and it usually ends with me being banned.

Philosophically, ethically whatever- I am a free market enthusiast. Voluntary exchange is the only real good social force that leads to innovation, inclusion, understanding, cultural fusion, etc etc. It breaks down barriers of ignorance and ethnic hostility. It frees people from subordinated drudgery.

Buuuuut

the present "free market people" (the ron paul people, the libertarians, to a much lesser and more bastardized extent, the right-wing conservatives) are always talking about how regulations negatively affect free economic development.

True.

On a conceptual level and shit. Then they go and actually advocate deregulation, like once the State is out of the way, the market forces will just work toward human freedom.

Buuuut- all of the land is already owned by the coercion profiteers. All of the means-of-production are in the hands of the powers behind the state.

09-16-2013, 01:33 PM

Mr.Perfidy

How are we going to argue about coercion and aggression as it relates to state-theft of property and then "defend private property" at the same time, when this private property is essentially the inherited accumulation of centuries of pillaging and theft and extortion?

So much money and title in the economy is the direct result of war-profiteering, native-american genocide-contracting, nazi collaboration, the slave-trade, and of course, giant coffers passed down from obsolete european royal peerage. Fuck all that.

So, before there can be a free market, doesn't there have to be some kind of Reset, where we, on a global scale, totally repudiate the holdings of this inheritance?

09-16-2013, 01:34 PM

Mr.Perfidy

(I'm copying this from threads on other forums where I was not well received by "free market" types)

the "free market" crowd is usually a jerkoff circle dedicated to identifying with imaginary rich people. They do not stop and ask these questions. If you believe in property rights, why should the corporations that currently own all the property keep anything?! All of it is just a dividend return on their investment in coercion collaboration. Therefore, no property as it exists was rightfully acquired.

My grandparents couldn't move to certain neighborhoods, attend certain schools, own different forms of property, or enter into different professions because of arbitrary racial, economic, and religious oppression. Now here I am in the lowest rungs of the economy, having been railroaded down this path by coercion from a century ago. At the same time, there are people my age who INHERITED THE BENEFITS OF THIS COERCION! They have trust funds, family networks of professionals and shit, just because they are from families that were allowed to have those opportunities in 1930. Fuck them.

09-16-2013, 02:00 PM

j3nn

I think if you can use and protect property, you can claim it assuming no one is already on it and using it etc. 90% of the land in the US is undeveloped. I think there's plenty to go around. I don't think we need a total reset, we can pick up where we left off and discard the inhumane parts, like gangs and unprovoked violence. It's more complicated than I am making it sound but I'm in favor of homesteading. I Do not fear corporations. They are government entities and without the state and fiat currency, there is little to fear about free enterprise. The easy money supply is how things got so effed up.

09-16-2013, 02:06 PM

Mr.Perfidy

So what about the banks? They are sitting on deeds to most of the developed land. Or the communications companies? Govt subsidied and regulations and licensing have maneuvered so that only a very small number of them own all of the communications infrastructure on the planet.

09-16-2013, 02:12 PM

j3nn

I think if you already own land or other property, you should be able to keep it so long as you're not a hoarder and it sits there idle and dilapidated. You have to be able to maintain it. The government owns the most land in the country and that is what is up for grabs. I'm not concerned with land grabs. I think there's a limit to how much can be used and protected. Even the state struggles to maintain what it has with virtually all the money in the world and a printing press.

The game changes when there isn't fiat currency in the equation. How many banks would there be? Not nearly as many large ones. They would be smaller and local, like the 1800s. Monopolies would be rare. Telecommunication companies have the government enabling their reign now, that luxury goes away.

I wouldn't be sad if there wasn't a state tomorrow, but I think there's a transition period that we're slowly implementing now. it's not overnight unless there is a financial collapse or natural disaster. Be prepared either way.

09-16-2013, 02:23 PM

Derpamix

Perfidy is right because there is no property in the US today that was homesteaded into existence. all existing property is the result of violence and State fiat and drawing a line on a map and saying "this is mine now".

There would have to be a reset, or at least mutualism to fix deprivation.

09-16-2013, 02:34 PM

TheyCallMeLazarus

The idea of a "free market" is an academic fantasy that has never existed for any significant period of time, anywhere.....it is a construct of the academic elitism of the 1950's, Milton Friedman and the like, which has no practical application. The same is true for communism, socialism, or any other absolutist ideology. In all cases, whether the powers that be are pushing one ideology or another, it is a due to its leverage in producing changes for their essential backers....

A great study in this is the book "The Dictator's Handbook". Not biased, fact-driven, and explains much about real politics.

In the case of a communist government, as in the case of the former Soviet Union, the entrenched powers were mostly bureaucrats. For this reason, talk of "the collective" was useful to further their power....in the case of the current United States, true power rests solely in capital, thus high-minded talk of a "free market" is useful....in all cases, ideology is neither right or wrong....it is simply a list of definitions, given by those with actual power, to feed to those they require the acquiescence of an idea of common cause.

It is all about 3 things: 1) who is in power? 2) What do they need to get more power or secure it? 3) What ideology furthers #2, and how can it be made palatable to the masses?

In just so happens that in the US, out of WWII and its economic devastation to most all of our competitors, the idea of totally unregulated capitalism was most useful for the powerful....it gained itself many contemporaries, from Ayn Rand (who took gov assistance hand-over-fist when she got sick, was a morally repugnant person) to Friedman's Chicago School.

There is no difference, at heart, between a given ideology in most countries that exist right now...there is only money, power, and how best to sell it to those you need to take it from. Read enough about the poweful throughout history, and that fact becomes undeniable.

09-16-2013, 02:37 PM

j3nn

[QUOTE=Derpamix;1312615]Perfidy is right because there is no property in the US today that was homesteaded into existence. all existing property is the result of violence and State fiat and drawing a line on a map and saying "this is mine now".

There would have to be a reset, or at least mutualism to fix deprivation.[/QUOTE]

So what about existing houses and commercial and agricultural property? Everyone has to give up theirs and start over?

09-16-2013, 02:45 PM

Derpamix

[QUOTE=j3nn;1312633]So what about existing houses and commercial and agricultural property? Everyone has to give up theirs and start over?[/QUOTE]
Inhabit the land you're on.

Per Bylund outlined a concept that sort of dealt with the logistics of "use rights" which is sort of like property by string of easements; that is, you only "own" natural resources within the context of your use for them. It's not territorial control, it's the right to continue your usage unobstructed. This allows for a good deal of overlap in the utilization of resources, but is really quite consistent with anarchist ideals; the idea that one could have the right to the harvest of the apple orchard they planted but not to restrict others from taking a walk through it, so long as they didn't interfere with the orchard usage.

As for the home, it's obviously yours. This should prevent more state like monopolies of claiming tons of land by takeover.